Can I get your thoughts/input on 70-300mm?

jd_davis · Apr 2, 2008

CollBaxter said:
Jim

The focus is normally quite smooth. As to the focus if you miss focus
the lens ratchets all the way back and then out again. I sometimes
find CAF works better. As to no collar that was one of my beefs but
it is quite light and sits on a tripod quite nicely. The lens is
quite sharp The autofocus is slow and a bit noisy.

I was not sure about the lens initialy and compared it to the
135-400. It is optical better than the 135-400 although the 135-400
is better built with faster focus and a tripod collar. (that said
the 135-400 been with sigma for 3 week with a backfocus problem.)

To my surprise it smoothed out as someone mentioned. I got some good images today even though it will take some getting used to.

CollBaxter said:
This lens has grown on me and I realy like it.

It has some short comings as to build and speed but for $400 it a
fantastic buy.

IMage quality and IQ wise its very good.

These where taken this afternoon.

Some great images Collin... I'm assuming you did use a tripod though... Right?

CollBaxter said:
P.S. I would lose the sticker.

I thought the same thing... I'm going to take it off... (gaudy)

CollBaxter said:
Collin

--
jd
---

jd_davis · Apr 2, 2008

As someone mentioned, it did smooth out after some shooting. It probably will take some getting used to, but I managed to get a few shots off today with it. (below)

I wasn't able to do much hand held, but the turkey was a hand held shot. (But there were about a dozen others blurred.)

---

---

---

E510 - 70-300mm

Thanks everyone for your advice. I took a few notes and hope to get better with this lens soon.

--
jd
---

jd_davis · Apr 2, 2008

Bootstrap said:
I'd be a bit concerned regarding the shipper and shipping methods.
That said, I think that you've gotten some good advice above.
I'm looking for a longer lens. I've had a try with the 50-200 and
it's awesome but, even the old version is a bit out of my price
range. I saw one on E-Bay for $785 at the Olympus Auctions.
I was considering the soon to be released Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 but I
doubt that I'll be able to swing that either.
I've seen some great images posted here and on other Forums with the
70-300 and I've also seen some not so good ones.
Tim's look great! Once you have your issues sorted out, I'd like to
see your final impressions.

I think this will take some practice hand held, and it looks as though I'll carrying a tripod with me a lot more. It seems to have smoothed out some and I could get used to it I think. It has a lot of support in the forum here.

I posted some results down below in the thread Bill.
Thanks,

Bootstrap said:
Thanks.
--
Troll Whisperer
Bill Turner

--
jd
---

jd_davis · Apr 2, 2008

Bobby J said:
JD, regarding your comments about the "rough" or "lumpy" zooming. I
read on "the other" forum, a post by a gentleman who also had the
same problem with his 70-300. He had worked at a photo shop years
before and was aware that sometimes the lubricant used in lenses is
not always evenly distributed. So
he said that he sat for 15 min zooming the lens continuosly and it
smoothed out considerably, and now after some use is silky smooth.
Might work for you too.
BJM

but it did as you mentioned. After the first dozen shots or so, I could tell the difference and it seems to be much smoother than it was. Great..!!

Thanks for your comments.

--
jd
---

apotessar · Apr 3, 2008

Looks like the lens is excellent for its price. I have a question however. How will this lens or even bigger lenses work on the smallest bodies? The batteries of these cameras are tiny. Wouldn't the AF operation drain them quite fast? I don't seem to have that problem with my E-410 and the 40-150, but...

CollBaxter · Apr 3, 2008

No 1 and 3 hand held. IS on

No2 was on a monopad. IS on

I tripped over the monopod and nearly fell into the sea. I had to stop myself donating it to neptune. I kept saying to myself "that a $200 monopod".

I have found the the monopod does help with IS you now only have movment on one axis only. But when you are jumping from rock to rock it can get in your way.

--
Collin

jd_davis · Apr 3, 2008

getting a monopod the other day. They are popular and I thought maybe it would be easier than a tripod too.

CollBaxter said:
No 1 and 3 hand held. IS on

No2 was on a monopad. IS on

I had the IS on when I shot the turkey. My camera still had the settings from shooting the little blue bird and I had to crouch down and adjust it so he wouldn't see me. I almost didn't have time to get the shot. (Well, it still was far from being a perfect shot anyway)

CollBaxter said:
I tripped over the monopod and nearly fell into the sea. I had to
stop myself donating it to neptune. I kept saying to myself "that a
$200 monopod".

I have found the the monopod does help with IS you now only have
movment on one axis only. But when you are jumping from rock to rock
it can get in your way.

Wow, a $200 monopod... Is it a Manfroto or something? How many breaks does it have in it? Just curious.

CollBaxter said:
--
Collin

--
jd
---

jd_davis · Apr 3, 2008

apotessar said:
Looks like the lens is excellent for its price. I have a question
however. How will this lens or even bigger lenses work on the
smallest bodies?

It seems like it would be a problem, but I put it on my tripod and it worked fine and wasn't to much out of balance. It wasn't awkward.

The batteries of these cameras are tiny. Wouldn't

apotessar said:
the AF operation drain them quite fast? I don't seem to have that
problem with my E-410 and the 40-150, but...

I don't know everything, but yeah it might put a little strain on the battery. (Especially if would have continued to work like it did at first.) I usually always carry an extra battery with me. I haven't looked into that problem and I haven't heard anyone say anything about that being a problem so far.

Thanks,

--
jd
---

jd_davis · Apr 3, 2008

CollBaxter said:
No 1 and 3 hand held. IS on

No2 was on a monopad. IS on

I tripped over the monopod and nearly fell into the sea. I had to
stop myself donating it to neptune. I kept saying to myself "that a
$200 monopod".

I have found the the monopod does help with IS you now only have
movment on one axis only. But when you are jumping from rock to rock
it can get in your way.

--
Collin

--
jd
---

CollBaxter · Apr 3, 2008

Manfroto Magfiber 4 part and a Manfrotto 484RC2 ball head.

It was one of those impetuous buys. I had been using a cheap so called made in "Germany" pod that kept on collapsing. I was taking pictures of birds and it collapsed for the last time. I took the camera off and threw it in the deepest part of the pond. I stormed of to a local camera shop and asked for the best mono pod they had. Their eye lit up and that's how I landed up paying the equivalent of $200.

I normally use a lightweight Monfoto tripod and extend the legs and use it as a mono/tripod but decided to use the monopod yesterday. I suppose I cant really blame the mono pod for being clumsy.

--
Collin

sushigaijin · Apr 3, 2008

Glad to hear your issues worked out; this is a lens I am considering as my birding lens. A quick question: Is this lens internal zooming, or external? How long is it at full zoom? it seems quite manageable fully retracted, but at twice the length I could see a tripod becoming handy.

Erik.

jd_davis · Apr 3, 2008

sushigaijin said:
Glad to hear your issues worked out; this is a lens I am considering
as my birding lens. A quick question: Is this lens internal
zooming, or external?

External

How long is it at full zoom?

About 7 1/2 inches.

it seems quite

sushigaijin said:
manageable fully retracted, but at twice the length I could see a
tripod becoming handy.

The part that zooms out is really light weight so it doesn't make that much of a difference on the tripod. It's nice...

As it was said earlier, for the price... it's probably unbeatable.

sushigaijin said:
Erik.

Thanks...

--
jd
---

Mark Forsyth40768 · Apr 3, 2008

apotessar said:
Looks like the lens is excellent for its price.

For the price it must be just about unbeatable.

apotessar said:
I have a question
however. How will this lens or even bigger lenses work on the
smallest bodies?

As far as I'm concerned it works brilliantly on the E-410 body.

apotessar said:
The batteries of these cameras are tiny. Wouldn't
the AF operation drain them quite fast? I don't seem to have that
problem with my E-410 and the 40-150, but...

I spent two days at a local motorcross event and changed batteries after filling up two 8g cards (RAW only). Lots of bursts of 5 or six shots, C-AF and minimal use of the LCD (occasional histogram checks only).

Two of the shots from the weekend are at http://flickr.com/photos/m99markf and are the first two that you'll see.

Ooroo
Mark F...

apotessar · Apr 3, 2008

Thanks to all.

Really looks like even the E-4x0s can handle big lenses, with focus-by-wire and all.

Still the very thought of my 410 and the 300 mm f/2.8 keeps me awake at night...

apotessar · Apr 3, 2008

Very good, thanks for posting!

Search

Can I get your thoughts/input on 70-300mm?

jd_davis

Well-known member

jd_davis

Well-known member

jd_davis

Well-known member

jd_davis

Well-known member

apotessar

Forum Enthusiast

CollBaxter

Forum Pro

jd_davis

Well-known member

jd_davis

Well-known member

jd_davis

Well-known member

CollBaxter

Forum Pro

sushigaijin

Forum Enthusiast

jd_davis

Well-known member

Mark Forsyth40768

Active member

apotessar

Forum Enthusiast

apotessar

Forum Enthusiast

Keyboard shortcuts